Brainwash watch: Rachel Maddow gets it right!

Last night was one of those occasions. Maddow, a punishment lover, is sometimes unfairly mocked as "The Nun." Last night, her instinct for punishment actually served her well.

After some earlier silly piddle, Maddow denounced the violence in San Jose without recourse to tribal excuses. To her credit, this is the way the corporate star started her second segment:

MADDOW (6/3/16): There was a time this year when protests at Donald Trump for president events, those protests generally happened inside those events.

Demonstrators would show up, sometimes they would protest against Mr. Trump silently, sometimes they would stand and up hold a sign, sometimes they'd stand up and yell. And then those protesters would be escorted out by security, and sometimes those protesters would be confronted by angry Trump supporters, and sometimes there would be violence, and Donald Trump would incorporate these disturbances into his stump speech.

He'd yell, "Get 'em out!" "Get 'em out!" That became a regular thing he would scream from the podium.

We sort of almost got used to that as a Trump phenomenon. But over the past few weeks something different has started happening. The totally inappropriate, scary violence we used to see inside Trump events, sometimes egged on by the candidate himself, now that is happening with some regularity outside Trump events, and particularly after Trump events have ended, when some anti-Trump protesters are basically sticking around at the site of Trump events, outside those events, and then they are behaving abominably.

For the record, we probably wouldn't use language that strong with regard to those who misbehaved in San Jose. But then, we aren't the punishment-loving faux prude who's sometimes mocked as "The Nun."

(As we've said before: we assume that nickname, which plays on a stereotype, is unfair to the vast bulk of nuns.)

Maddow chastised the anti-Trump forces in San Jose (and elsewhere) for "behaving abominably," for engaging in "totally inappropriate, scary violence." She played videotape of similar recent conduct in several other locations, then played tape from San Jose, "which was the worst yet."

After playing the videotape, she offered this further assessment:

MADDOW: As far as we can tell, those protests, and that violence, which is not a form of right to protest, that stuff at this Trump event last night in San Jose, it doesn't appear these were coordinated actions. It doesn't appear they were centrally led or directed in any way.

But this violence outside Trump rallies, this violence by anti-Trump demonstrators, this is now getting to be a regular occurrence. These clashes and these protests are in danger of becoming a new normal thing in this election landscape, which cannot stand.

This is a new political reality that is new, and that is scary. And we have a lot of weeks to go and many, many, many more political events until November. I want to know how this tide is going to turn.

Joining us is NBC News correspondent Jacob Rascon, who's been following the Trump campaign and has been at a bunch of these protests where violence has broken out, including yesterday in the thick of it in San Jose.

According to Rascon, the anti-Trump forces in San Jose went beyond previous acts of misconduct.

"Usually it doesn't happen like this where the protesters actually just walk up and beat somebody up," the fresh-faced reporter convincingly said. "It happened time after time [in San Jose]. "We saw it more than a dozen times, I think."

After a technical screw-up by her increasingly unprofessional, clown-inflected staff, Maddow played tape of "a strong statement tonight from Bernie Sanders speaking off the cuff, asked by reporters to respond to these ugly incidents that happened last night with anti-Trump protesters chasing down Trump supporters in the streets of San Jose outside that Trump event."

Maddow got it right! She offered no excuses for "the violence at the San Jose rally." As she has done in the past, she implied that this conduct is politically unconstructive. She said it "cannot stand."

Maddow offered no excuses for the violence in San Joe. One hour earlier, her colleague Chris Hayes took a markedly different approach to these same events.

Midway through his show, Hayes referred to the previous night's "assaults." Below, you see where he went next.

We apologize for the jumbled transcript. Because the Hayes show didn't post the videotape of this segment, we aren't able to proofread the official corporate transcript which is, as always, a bit of a corporate mess:

HAYES (6/3/16): Last night, we saw disturbing images out of Donald Trump's rally in San Jose, California, where some protesters gathered outside the event, assaulted Trump supporters.

Those attacks, of course, become the contest of a long campaign that has featured many incidents of violence at Trump rallies, much of it prior to this, by Trump supporters against anti-Trump protesters. Students being pushed around by a self-avowed white supremacist, to a young man being punched in the face at a rally in North Carolina.

The violence at times encouraged either explicitly or tacitly from the podium by Donald Trump himself:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

TRUMP: Get him out! Get him out, troublemaker. Get him out of here!

TRUMP: I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you. In the old days, they didn't come back, I can tell you that. They were gone. They were taken out, they were gone.

TRUMP: They realize that there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences. There are none anymore.

TRUMP: So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell—I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HAYES: Ahead, we'll show you one clip from last night that captures, I thought, the tensions running through Donald Trump's rallies.

This is classic tribal conduct. Rather than show you what happened in San Jose the night before, Hayes treated you to familiar old tape of familiar old incidents—familiar old incidents in which the misconduct came from The Other Tribe.

On a program which allegedly presents the "news," he showed you tape of months-old incidents in which The Others were wrong. He withheld tape of the many new incidents in recent weeks in which We have become the miscreants.

That's a form of brainwashing too. In accord with Hard Tribal Law, we viewers were allowed to see one type of incident only—the type of incident where the misconduct came from The Other Tribe.

Let's be fair! In the closing segment of his show, Hayes finally played that "one clip from last night," the clip that somehow "captures the tensions running through Donald Trump's rallies."

In fact, that clip didn't show any conduct inside "Donald Trump's rallies." It showed violence in the street of San Jose, violence which was being conducted by anti-Trump forces.

In our view, Christopher Hayes was frameworking hard. In the passage shown below, he describes that one piece of tape, and he builds a classic tribe-friendly framework around the violent incidents which have occurred in this year's campaign.

HAYES: Last night, outside of Donald Trump's rally in San Jose, we saw some really upsetting scenes of violence. Protesters, by the hundreds, anti-Trump protesters, gathered outside Trump's campaign rally.

Most of the demonstrations were peaceful. Things at times did turn violent.

Out of all the videos and images that came out last night, there was one that stood out to me in particular for the complexity and intensity of emotion it showed:

[VIDEOTAPE OF INCIDENT]

You see a man in a Trump hat with other men surrounding him, pushing him, while female anti-Trump protesters surround him, trying to intervene, yelling, "No violence, no violence." Another man taking him from behind and escorting him away from the folks that are trying to punch him.

it was a really bad scene, and yet, oddly, becoming a familiar one at Trump's rallies, even if the violence in the past has generally gone in the other direction.

Events have become cauldrons of hatred and reaction to that hatred, and speaks to the disturbing nature of what is being built around the Trump candidacy, around his rallies in particular.

Joining me now, Bob Garfield, co-host of WNYC's On the Media.

How odd! Rascon described "more than a dozen incidents" in which anti-Trump people "actually just walk up and beat somebody up."

Hayes played tape of only such incident—an incident where he can show us members of Our Team yelling, "No violence, no violence" and otherwise trying to help the man who is being attacked.
Hayes then built a wonderful framework around the relatively small number of violent incidents which have occurred in the past year.

According to Hayes, "events have become cauldrons of hatred and reaction to that hatred." Translation:

When They do it, it's "hatred." When We do it, it's "reaction to hatred." In accord with ancient tribal law, when We engage in violent conduct, complexity will be found!

Hayes played tape of several months-old events—events which make Their Team look bad.

He played tape of only one new event from the night before. In this tape, he noted the helpful members of Our Team yelling, "No violence, no violence."

This is a form of brainwashing too. On your corporate liberal channel, you're being restricted in what you can see. Hayes is helping you maintain a bogus idea, an idea that predates the human race:

The good people are all Over Here with Us. The bad people are all Over There.

That ancient belief is never true—and yes, this is a form of hypnosis. In this way, you're being dumbed way down, in service to the corporation, which exists now to please the tribe, whose members provide those good ratings and those high ad rates.

Maddow got it much more right! She actually featured the recent events. She built no dismissive frameworks.

Alas! On Monday, we'll return to her clownish behavior concerning Governor McAuliffe last week. On these occasions, the cable star's attraction to punishment and dimwitted scolding served the world very poorly.

Also this: On Hardball, Trump was blamed for the violence in San Jose in another way, a way which is getting familiar.

He shouldn't have been in San Jose at all! Because he went to San Jose, the violence was really his fault!

Assaulting a female Trump supporter isn't a crime, but Trump running for POTUS is? Should the FBI ask DOJ to present the evidence of HRC's criminality to a grand jury would that also take the focus off of Trump, the real "criminal"?

There should be an investigation of who the violent protesters are. They could be Republican operatives or Trump staff ratfucking the Democrats and portraying Trump as a victim to distracts from the recent political attacks.

I watched a blonde woman be struck by two raw eggs. She was smiling throughout, with no attempt to defend herself, as if she were in a snowball fight. That isn't the usual reaction to raw egg in your hair. It looked like a set up. A guy with a lot of money can stage such events.

I say this not from a tribal motive but as someone familiar with the long history of Republican ratfucking coupled with Trump's moral shallowness.

Girl was hit by eggs, not rocks. She is smiling because she not be intimidated by HRC/Bernie supporters throwing eggs or tantrums. If the eggs were thrown by Trump plants the liberal media would have exposed the infiltrators long ago. Pretending the hooligans were not bona fide liberals is bizarre considering the history of liberal violence at political events.

So, you agree she is smiling. Most women would be upset to have their hair messed up.

Reporters don't think these are Hillary supporters. They think they may be a mix of Bernie supporters or Anarchists.I think there are also some plants mixed in. I don't buy your explanation for her smile. She could be drunk or perhaps exhilarated.

I strongly suspect they are neither Hillary nor Bernie supporters, but rather non-citizen hooligans. Nothing more, nothing less. I noticed a number of them were wearing Mexican National team soccer garb.

Anyone can buy a soccer jersey or a Mexican flag and wave it about, even a legal immigrant citizen can do it, or a non-immigrant Trump supporter.

I read an interesting article at The National Memo about Trump's mob ties. A guy with those connections can find plenty of hooligans to help him out. If you see a woman wearing a fur coat, do you assume she's a squirrel?

It would seem to me you are bending over backwards to rationalize, or explain away some inexcusable behavior. Do you have a scintilla of evidence to support your conspiracy theory, that Trump is behind this hooliganism?

1. The victim of the egging was smiling as if it were a game.2. Some protesters were chanting "Bernie, Bernie" which is what you do if you are trying to make sure people know Bernie supporters were there.3. Trump and the republicans have done this kind of thing before. 4. The only person who benefits from the violence is Trump.5. Trump is in a position where he needs some sympathy and he doesn't appear to know how to counter Hillary's recent attack.6. The violence was aimless -- they were just walking up to random people and hitting them. No specific incitement. That suggests money as a motive. The girl's smiling suggests she was in on it, as does her appearance and clothing. Notice what she was wearing.

By your conspiracy theory, the girl wouldn't be smiling, but actually crying to convey suffering at the hands of Bernie/HRC protestors. If we follow your logic, the girl must have been hired by Bernie/HRC and told to smile to act as if she were hired by Trump.

Why would a pretty young blond woman wear a shapeless football jersey anywhere that wasn't a football game? She didn't want any of her nice clothes to be ruined. She is smiling because she knows it is a game and her knowledge dictates her expression. She isn't a good enough actress to pretend to be upset by something she knows isn't real. Amateur night. I think she was given the jersey and told to wear it so that she could be readily identified as a Trump supporter on the subsequent video.

As for Trump, we've been seeing his campaign goons manhandle people from the first campaign event. You think a mobbed-up narcissist with a tough-guy persona doesn't have goons to "handle" things for him?

One reporter carefully called this "political theater". That is being charitable. The flag burning is such a cliché, a stereotype of leftist violence, that it had to come from the minds of idiots like Trump's staff or the GOP. Someone who understood today's left would have used different symbols.

Google Donald Segretti for an example. Roy Cohn (Trump's close advisor until it was revealed he had AIDS) trained Roger Stone, who continues to help Trump. Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are noted for their dirty tricks (Rove has been funding Bernie through PACs).

Here is another example: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/south-carolina-dirty-tricks-republicans-219116

Again, no evidence, merely wild speculation. Not only are the violent perpetrators in on the "theater" but the victims are as well?!? That's doubling down on the bending over backwards.

I remember the cancelled Chicago event seeing, on television, "protesters" walking through the audience shoving people, getting in their faces, and tearing campaign materials out of their hands. That's wrong and people on the left need to admit it.

The San Jose "protesters" remind me of the same type of thugs you might see at a USA vs. Mexico soccer match at the L.A. Coliseum. Flag burners chanting "Osama", idiots filling empty beer cups with urine to throw at non-Mexican fans, and random physical assaults. A real sympathetic crowd to be associated with.

Those aren't stereotypes, they're observed, not uncommon behavior. Most sports fans of all ethnicities are indeed nice people, there is an element that is not "nice". To answer your quesion- it's how hooligans, not leftists in this case, behave.

Billy the Kid and Andrew Carnegie were both immigrants or born to immigrants, one rich one poor. One owned a huge factory and became known for philanthropy while attacking his workers, and the other robbed banks and was shot.

California protests are routinely worse than other parts of the country. Inequality causes violence, suicide, homicide. Your favorite heroes of history, Churchill to Clinton to Franklin all wanted blood to be shed. That's gruesome evil sure, why only criticize those at the bottom who carry it out?

Go ask Randolph Roth who wrote "American Homicide." Break up unions, cut SNAP, and you will routinely see violence go up.

There is also something about being a young guy that makes it fun to break things and tear stuff up. The obvious injustices of the world become justification for what they would be doing anyway. Redirecting that enjoyment of destruction (fostered by action films, video games, contact sports) into peaceful social change requires adult guidance. Egging these kids on is irresponsible because they ruin their own lives without accomplishing any real change.

Today's far left forgets how the radicalism of the 60s became the frustration and disillusion of the 70s which resulted in bombings in the name of prison reform and racial justice and Puerto Rican independence. We don't need Bernie supporters to start building bombs. It didn't work last time and it won't accomplish a revolution this time either, no matter what Susan Sarandon thinks.

Despite being a plutocrat, Carnegie did a lot more good in the world than Billy the Kid, who I assume you consider the morally righteous one of the pair. I disagree strongly that Clinton wanted violence. Churchill yes, FDR yes, but considering they were both fighting Hitler, what was their alternative. No one criticized the soldiers at both the top and bottom who fought that war.

Social injustice is a facile excuse for undermining the efforts of everyone else by embarrassing the left. That's why there have always been agent provocateurs egging on the gullible, hoping they will step out of line so cops can crack down and stop the rest of the demonstration, shut down the union, disband organizations, etc. That's why the FBI infiltrated leftist groups and taught young men and women how to build those bombs. You seem to want to play into those hands. If you were at a meeting saying this stuff, I'd wonder who you really were.

There are lots of examples of dirt poor kids who didn't become scummy outlaws. Why imply that Billy the Kid killed people because of his poverty. He killed people because he was a sociopath.

Folk songs about outlaws were popular as expressions of income inequality (Jessie James robbing the rich to give to the poor) with banks as the bad guys. That doesn't mean the outlaws themselves were trying to redress inequalities. They were deviant criminals acting out of self-interest later idealized into heroes. It is important not to confuse myth with reality.

Trump pays of AGs in Florida and Texas to drop their investigation of Trump University and he pays $25,000 and $35,000 respectively (within 3 days in FL) to their campaigns. That is what a quid pro quo looks like. And instead of denying this stuff, Trump brags about doing it. And he has the nerve to call Hillary "crooked."

An amazing testimony on a spell caster who brought my wife back to me..i live in canada,and I'm happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with three kids.A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife.so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce.she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she didn't love me anymore.So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife.So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.{goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who didn't call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website {goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com},if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to "bringing your ex back. So thanks to the goodluckspellcaster for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com

Apparently, she believes the IG's contention that the Secretary of State reports to the Legal Office when it comes to decision making. She thinks Clinton should have "asked permission" because sending personal emails outside the government system "wasn't allowed". Is she unaware how this attitude infantilizes an important cabinet member?

Hillary rules again -- she must "ask permission" and conduct her business differently than previous secretaries of state, adhering to rules created after the fact by her political enemies. Since those rules were ex post facto, they can be and will be whatever she didn't actually do, because gotcha. No explanation, no matter how rational, will be accepted and the worst possible spin will be placed on her actions.

Then, no Democrat will defend her, except a handful of honest people, such as Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's aide (who did the same thing). Maureen Dowd, who has as much party loyalty as Bernie Sanders, will join the Republicans in their attack, even if they cannot show what was wrong with her actions besides the IG's ability to get a lawyer to say he didn't OK it.

The State Department has stated that she did nothing wrong. The FBI is not investigating her. A rule was made after she left office. Whether Bush should have made such a rule earlier is moot, since he didn't. Out of all the Secretaries of State who used private email (including Condi Rice and Colin Powell), she is the only one to have provided copies of all of her emails except the personal ones. There is no rule requiring her to provide personal email and she has the discretion to decide which are personal and which are not (as done anyone else using the official government server). Colin Powell used a Yahoo account.

This is another pseudo-scandal. Democrats should become sufficiently familiar with the details to defend her from these repeated false claims. The IG's report says the State Department should have had procedures in place to deal with new technology. Clinton consulted her own attorneys about her server (as she has the right to do, as Secretary of State, the head of the department. She does not report to her staff -- they follow her directives.

As a matter of fact there was no rule at the time that she had to preserve copies of all her work emails, just the ones that would qualify as Federal Records, and she is the one to decide which ones fit that definition.

This is a little understood, and never reported fact. Most of the emails that were released do not meet the definition of Federal Records.

Once again, Clinton Rules prevail.

From the OIG report:

***************************The FAM also included examples of emails that could constitute Federal records, including those providing key substantive comments on a draft action memorandum, documenting significant Department decisions and commitments reached orally, and conveying information of value onimportant Department activities. 25 The Department has frequently reminded employees of this requirement, including through a November 2009 announcement to all employees that noted that Federal records can be found in “any media, including email, instant messages, socialmedia, etc.” 26 However, the Department believes that the majority of the millions of emails sent to and from Department employees each year are non-permanent records with no long-termvalue.*****************************

Even old time pal George Stephanopolis wasn't sold on HRC's answers about why she figured it was Ok to rely exclusively on a private email server. HRC says it was a mistake only because her private server was revealed to the public by the Benghazi committee.

Why are HRC's staff all taking the 5th Amendment when asked about the private server if there is nothing to hide and HRC told them to cooperate?

HRC keeps insisting everyone in the government knew she was using private email, but not even POTUS Obama knew she was using a private server. If it was allowed, why did she keep this a secret from her boss? Not to mention, anyone at Foggy Bottom who dared suggest it was not Kosher to use the private email exclusively was told never to speak about HRC's email operation.

1. That someone didn't know about something doesn't mean it was being kept from him or was a secret.2. Her private email wasn't being used exclusively. She also used the government system and handled classified material appropriately.3. Why should Obama micromanage to the point of supervising this? He has better uses for his time.4. Some foggy bottom idiot trying to malign Clinton, now or in the moment, has nothing to add to the discussion. These guys don't supervise the Sec of State and were rightly told to mind their own business.

Please quote where Hillary said the President knew. If Ronald Reagan didn't know some trivia about department operations, but managers claimed he did, would anyone be surprised? Bush was told about Osama bin Laden determined to strike but he was blindsided by 9/11, and you think this is some kind of lie. You are being an idiot.

HRC used her private email server exclusively while at Foggy Bottom. Even her lackey doesn't deny that.

"Clinton used for government business State Department colleagues' official government addresses. Copies of those emails would therefore be retained by the State Department." Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill

The FBI is spending a lot of time to find out if HRC ever handled Top Secret, Secret and Confidential material properly. That you or Brian Fallon claim she did isn't going to persuade anyone other than HRC fellow apologists.

There was no IG when HRC was Secretary of State. Her problem was she didn't have any supervision which is always a disaster when it comes to the Clintons.

POTUS Obama stuck his nose into a private matter that led to the Beer Summit. Since when has Obama not spent inordinate amount of time on trivial pursuits?

The FBI is involved in a "political vendetta?" Even HRC hasn't claimed that nor POTUS Obama.

There is criminal court, civil court, and the court of public opinion. Taking the 5th has always had a presumption of the witness concealing evidence in the court of public opinion. Why would HRC staffers be the first to be inoculated from this perception?

Not the whole FBI, but Comey, the IG, and various conservatives in the intelligence community, which skews right anyway. This comes from Klayman's FOIA suit, serendipitously, like Monica L. did. Her enemies have blown nothing into a trumped up attack that has no crime, no wrongdoing, but enough complexity to confuse the public amidst false claims that Hillary messed up. Her staffers shouldn't be persecuted for Clinton's ambitions. They served our country and deserve better. You should be ashamed to be on the wrong side of this.

numbnuts @ 5:37 - I'd never suspect that George is an old friend of yours. Perhaps that's why you always refer to him when disparaging all things Clinton. Did you know Georgie still blanches bright red every time he hears the word "blowjob"?

You didn't know Stephanopolis worked in Clinton Administration, gave money to Clinton Foundation, and has been an apologist for the Clintons as moderator of "This Week"? That Stephanopolis was incredulous of HRC's spin on IG report was the highlight of his journalistic career.

I've never heard or read of Rachel referred to as "The Nun", anywhere, ever. I'll presume Somerby is making it up.

It's definitely apt though. Rachel really does remind me of a nun, especially the younger ones who went without a habit at my Catholic school in the late 70s when I was a kid. (I also thought a lot of them seemed like lesbians, if that's ok to say because I'm gay too.)

There was a segment on her show where she spent a bunch of time talking about her Aunt Joan, the nun, who was visiting her parents from Canada. She taught her audience how to mix a mojito, in honor of nuns, because nuns deserve good drinks. Somerby may have extended the term to her because she deserves good drinks too. I doubt it has anything to do with nuns being lesbians (they are married to Jesus). You perhaps think any woman who likes comfortable shoes is a lesbian too?

On these cable tv shows and in other places in the media there's a lot of ass kissing and fluffing among the hosts and the people providing the content. (Calling each other brilliant etc) So much so that the content itself suffers and all the ass kissing creates an environment where criticism and self reflection is squashed. Maddow's heart is in the right place but she is too entrenched in a corrupt system to even see that it is corrupt.

Clinton added a page to her website about protection of animals, after her staff met with several animal advocacy groups. Sanders has no such policy. So, Clinton is "pandering" to the animal rights activists. This, despite the fact that she has a history of protecting elephants (a Clinton Foundation initiative) and attacking poaching (because it funds terrorism) as Secretary of State. Nevertheless, she is pandering, because those are the Clinton rules. Anything she does right or does well must be for some cynical reason.

Dowd is not the only person who has suggested that Hillary's speech was written by someone else. Dowd thinks Warren's tweets taught Clinton how to attack Trump. Did Warren also teach her how to face down the Benghazi committee. Maybe Warren was there when she met with Putin too?

Thank you for that link. When I googled "Clinton pandering to animal rights movement" this Daily Beast article was not among the first three pages, but the Vegan comment box I linked was.

I find it interesting that you used the positive comments about Clinton's history of advocacy of animal rights (elephants and poaching) came from this article.

In fact the only use of the term "pandering" is in the headline. The article celebrates how happy animal rights groups are with Hillary for her web page and how Sanders was attacked by animal rights activists (a fact your comment ignores.)

You seem to say this article is critical. You remind me of the post Somerby did on why some of Hillary's supporters are her biggest problem.

You need to actually read the article, not just search for the word "pander" in it.

Here are two paragraphs that suggest pandering without using the actual word:

"He added it’s the fifth Sanders event that the group has targeted—they’ve disrupted two of his events in Wisconsin, and two in New York. Johnson also disrupted a campaign speech Bill Clinton gave for Hillary Clinton in October in Des Moines—and several months later, she made a play for the animal-rights vote."

The phrase "made a play for" suggests pandering.

Here's another:

"But the animal-rights platform she rolled out earlier in May seemed cast to appeal to progressive animal-welfare activists—though it’s much more of a draw for more moderate groups"

The phrase "seemed cast to appeal to" describes pandering without using the word.

The article works overtime trying to show that Hillary is pandering. You are correct that the review of her animal rights record at the end undermines that view. But putting correct or balancing info at the end of an article that posits something negative about Hillary is standard practice. Journalists know that fewer readers get to the end of an article.

You didn't seem to get past the headline and a google search for "pander". Google results depend on what other people have searched for, not what exists. You need to try multiple approaches to be sure you've found what exists. For example, Bernie is being accused of supporting agribusiness. So this recent dispute isn't just about whether he eats meat.

I didn't mention Bernie because he is irrelevant now. The primary is over. It is time to focus on Trump. Attacks on Hillary are important because she will be in the general election, weakened because of crap like this -- that she will say anything to get someone's vote.

"Some of Hillary's supporters" are far from her biggest problem. I don't always agree with Somerby and I haven't liked his reluctance to support Hillary -- he has said before he likes Sanders and I have wondered whether that is still true in the light of more recent events. Taking that phrase out of context to rebuff complaints about how Hillary is treated is getting old. Can't you actually deal with whatever issue is raised?

If Sanders had such a policy, Clinton would not be pandering to animal rights activists by adding one herself. She would be forced to the left by Bernie's example. You know how this works. Without the comparison to Bernie, the accusation of pandering makes no sense. This is occurring in the context of animal rights attacks on Bernie's campaign. I repeat, Bernie is irrelevant. He lost. That doesn't stop the media from trying to diminish Hillary, as shown by my example.

I am greatful to Bob Somerby for providing this commentary box where we liberals can still freely express our carefully reasoned opinions. I don't see why more Hillary and Bernie supporters aren't limiting themselves to safe places like this after our team totally embarrassed the movement in San Jose.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Am Singh Darren from NY, USA. My wife divorced me year 2014 and went back to her EX husband. I felt heart broken and weak for i didn't know how to get her back for she was my love and my life. I did all i could do to get her back through my close friends and family members but nothing worked out. So, in my place of work, i tried searching for help online on how i can get her back and i found various testifiers of how a Doc named Osemu has been faithful & helpful with his spells. I gave it a try by getting in touch with him on his Email ( Doctorokpamenspelltemple@hotmail.com ) and i explained my problem to him. Doc Osemu prepared a spell for me that brought back my wife within 12 to 16 hours after i contacted him. Doc Osemu assured me that nothing can break us apart again and since 2015 till this moment, i have been full of joy with my wife and we live as one happy family. You out there that needs help why not contact Doc Osemu today and be happy again. Call me on 1 (914)-363-6524 OR what's app him on +2348135254384 for more info. Website: http://doctorokpamenpowerfulspelltemple.webs.com

My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com

HOW TO GET YOUR EX BOYFRIEND BACK Dr goodluck Save My Marriage,i want to use this Opportunity to thanks him very much for bring Love of my Life Back to me Again After 2year he left me to A business Trip in United Kingdom without contacting me or call me for years even when i try to find him to United Kingdom i don't see him then back to the states thinking what to do and how to get my Lost Husband never know he met a Lady in London and he was living with her for two years , then one day A Friend of mine Julie told me about Dr goodluck Solution that he can help me to get my lost Husband back to me between 24hrs taught it was a joke but i just decided to contact goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com he told me my Husband would be back to me in next 12 hrs after casting spell on him so really when the 12 hrs completed my Husband call me on the Phone and said he was John that he was so sorry that he want to come back to me in the States,i was so Happy that my Husband that left me for 2 Years called me and say sorry that he want to see me Now we are together he can't do without me he always wants me by his side.now he love's me and he does not want anything to hurt me anymore.My Husband bought me a new car and a Gold wristwatch. now i have access to his account to prove that he will never leave me alone Again, am so happy all thanks goes to Dr goodluck spell caster .if you want to contact him for help here his is private email address goodluck05spellcaster@gmail.com He was very Genuine and he work wonderful Job for me after i think i lost my Husband . Mandy Divanna from UK